Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that this is a panel-internal state feed rather than a user-initiated call, but says nothing about how the tokens are consumed or what happens with stale/expired tokens.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the internal scope front-loaded and the do-not-call warning in the strongest position. It is tight, though the terseness edges into under-specification rather than pure economy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the do-not-call directive covers the main decision an agent must make. However, the unexplained "tokens" input and the absence of any pointer to the correct sibling tool leave gaps for an agent that hits this while looking for job status.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single required parameter "tokens" (array of 1-12 non-empty strings) has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what a token represents, where it comes from, or whether missing/invalid tokens cause an error. With one undocumented parameter the schema and description together leave the agent unable to construct a valid call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"The state of the jobs it is tracking" names a resource (jobs) and an implied status read, but the verb is nominal and the scope is circular ("jobs it is tracking"). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_job or wait_for_jobs, so the agent learns only that this is a job-panel-internal status feed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Never call this yourself" is an unambiguous, explicit exclusion — stronger than most usage guidance. It stops short of a full routing instruction because it never names the sibling the agent should use instead (wait_for_jobs or get_job) for legitimate job polling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.